The PC liberals in Europe are actually pro-rape. They love the "rapefugees". The PC crowd refuse to condemn the muslims refugees even if they rape and riot around Europe. Donald Trump is absolutely right.

Rape is immoral. Someone who is against child molestation is being moral.

You are conflating morality with political correctness.

The difference is between that of the rightness and wrongness of SPEECH and TERMS rather than categorical ACTS.

You're right, someone getting offended by something doesn't make something politically incorrect. The definition I gave was a little flawed, since it only covers actions and not works of art, but it can, I think, be extended to cover works of art. Plus, we could just consider 'creating something that offends people' an action. But, either way, it shouldn't be too hard. So, we can figure out, roughly, whether SAO is politically correct by asking whether people are offended by it. If more people are offended by it than those that find it inoffensive, then we might provisionally call it 'politically incorrect.' I don't think that's the case, but I haven't the data. But, we could find out with sufficient resources. The same goes with pooping cats. If, among alternatives, we can find the option that offends the least number of people, then such an option is the politically correct one. We need only find out what offends people.

Rapists and child molesters might disagree with you on the morality of their actions, but regardless, why does it matter at all to what makes a thing politically correct? You say I'm conflating morality and political correctness, but to me, it seems as though you're conflating political correctness and immorality. Why can't something be both moral and politically correct? Why do you seem to be implying that the moral choice can't also be the one that offends the least number of people?

As to the last sentence, you seem to be implying that speaking something does not constitute an action. Would you mind explaining? I was under the impression that people could act politically correct, since actions, in my experience, often offend people more than words do. But perhaps you find my definition of PC lacking. If so, then what's yours?

First, I see nothing wrong, inherently, with a thing being politically correct. It is, for example, overwhelmingly the Politically Correct stance to be against: rape, serial killing, drug addiction, fascism, and child molestation.

Strawman example, no sane member of Western Society has ever argued that (with the exception of fascism which is a political ideology and could be replaced with communism) rape, serial killings, drug addiction and child molestation are anything but deplorable. A better example of being politically correct would be to refer to disabled people as differently abled.

Well, if I did use a strawman argument, then this seems to imply some very interesting things about you. To the best of my knowledge, a strawman argument is when a speaker (or writer, I guess) misrepresents the view of the argument he is attacking, so that when he knocks it down, it appears as though he's won the argument.

So in order for you to say that I've straw-manned you, you seem to be implying that I've misrepresented your views. And given that I've represented your views as being against rape, serial killing, drug addiction, fascism, and child molestation, then it makes me wonder -- do you think those things are right or OK? Or perhaps you have no preference for whether children are molested. But you seem to be saying in the next sentence that I was correct in this presentation of your views. If this is not how I misrepresented your views, then how? What 'straw-man' did I knock down?

I would recommend roughly the same advice about political correctness that I would about etiquette -- you should be polite as possible until it interferes with something of higher import.

I have no disagreement with political correctness. There are some things that, one shouldn't say or do in this day and time.

But where do you draw the line? It's one thing to correct someone on something racial for example but then you have people who want to ban and censor things because of something that wouldn't go over in today's world, without realizing that it was written/produced in a different time. Like college students who want Greek literature banned for example...or those who want Gone with the Wind banned. Or those two girls who were using face masks but got called out for racism.

I think we're mostly in agreement here. But, you ask, "where do you draw the line?" I left the last sentence of my first post in, because that was more or less my answer to your question, but I think this overlaps a little with my answer to camay1997, so I'll answer both of you at the same time.

The problem with political correctness is that it's proponents act as if there's some universal standard which we should all be aware of and adhere to. Sure MOST people are against rape, serial killing, drug addiction, fascism, and child molestation but some aren't, and tend to site religion as their justification but that's a topic for another discussion. Let me focus on the idea of trying to offend as few people as possible. Even if your joke as deemed inoffensive by 99% of the people who heard it that'd still leave 60 million people on this planet offended. And since what offends people will vary by context, age, sex, occupation, race, orientation, religion, locale and a dozen other things; it seems like pandering to that 1% to go out of one's way to be PC. And that seems odd in a society that went with majority rule

First of all, I'll just thank you for being the first one to criticize my argument, rather than just ignore it and go on making unrelated arguments. So thanks.

Secondly, in case you didn't read what I've written above your quote, I believe I can formulate an answer to both of your and Nogara-san's posts by looking at the question "where do you draw the line?". My answer, in short, is that Political Correctness should be pursued until it interferes with something of higher import. If, for instance, people wanted criminalize the word 'nigger,' this would interfere with free speech, which is to me, something of higher import. So, I'd be against the criminalization of any words. Now if I understand your argument correctly, you seem to be implying something along the lines of "since anything you say might potentially offend someone, somewhere, the least offensive thing you can say is nothing at all, which, thus, efficiently ends free speech -- which we agree is for the best of society -- thus, we reject any political correctness." Or to put it a different way, you might agree with the statement that one should be politically correct until it interferes with something of higher import, but you would say that political correctness always (or almost always) interferes with something of higher import. So you would push the 'appropriate amount of political correctness slider' down to 0, or very near there.

Your argument is correct, I think, if a person can only have one set of goals at a time. If a person must choose between their political goals, their ethical goals, their economic goals, philosophical goals, social goals, etc. then I agree that their political ones should almost always be rejected. Sometimes this is the case. Sometimes, for instance, you simply can't get your point across without offending everyone in the room, and you think it more important, perhaps ethically for instance, to maintain honesty. This is precisely where your argument applies. However, it must also be recognized that people often live in a nexus of desires, goals, and ambitions that supersede their desire to be liked by others, or in agreement with others, or what ever 'politics' even means outside of the governmental denotation, within which most of us live. Let me try and make myself a little more clear.

Words don't mean anything of themselves. We have an idea of the thing we want to communicate, and we probably have a few words that might refer to the thing in question. Although there are many ways to communicate things, let's stick with words for now. Using words, then, I've successfully communicated something to someone else when the word that I use brings up a sufficiently similar referent in each of our minds. So, for example, if I say 'chair,' and am thinking of something like a sofa, and my conversational partner hears 'chair' and thinks of something like a throne, then, pretty much, the only thing I've really communicated is more or less 'something to sit on.' If that's all I needed, then it's successful, otherwise, we may have some misunderstanding. I mention this only to illustrate that no two people have the exact same referent of a word. Everyone understands the meaning of every word ever so slightly differently, although there are still enough similarities to render language useful. I should add that I've never been in anyone else's head, so I can't really verify this, but I just think it very unlikely that the experiences that gave us the ideas behind our words were exactly the same, and thus it seems to me quite fair to say that the ideas themselves probably differ to varying respects.

So, if I'm trying to communicate the same idea to both my brother and my mother, I will use different words. Not because I'm inauthentic, or I need to wear a mask with different people, or I'm deceitful, or whatever, but because people understand words differently, and the best words to bring about mutual understanding may differ between people. The reason this is relevant in the context of political correctness is because, usually, your goals don't exist in a vacuum consisting only of yourself and one and only one goal. I may have multiple goals, many of which can be fortified and better met using the assistance of others, and if I want to convince them of the mutual beneficence of my ideas, I will want to communicate these ideas in a way that leads both of us to understand each other. This means that I will want to tailor my words to reflect how my listener understands them. The reason why it's good, in this instance, to avoid offense, is because it sours the possibility of understanding, distracts from dialogue, and shuts down discussion.

I don't use curse words in front of my mother. Not because I think one shouldn't curse in front of one's mother, but because I know that my mother will be instantly distracted from the rest of the conversation. At the least, she would say 'watch your mouth,' and at the most, the discussion at hand would be over and we would begin the discussion "what the hell's wrong with swear words?" If I use those words while trying to explain something important to me, I know that using them will derail conversation and make it harder to make my point, if for no other reason than that my mother will find it harder to focus on what I'm saying. The same might be said of using the word 'nigger.' It usually makes it harder to come to an understanding, and as such, it is usually an inefficient communication tool.

Sadly, although it is often used as a way to control what others say, using the 'Politically Correct Terms' should be a way to choose what you say. Ideally, someone informing you what they think of when you call them, for instance, a faggot, is them telling you something along the lines of -- look man, I know the word doesn't mean much to you, but the things I associate with that word instantly bring up a bunch of other shit that has nothing to do with your main point. It's pretty fucking distracting, and you could make your point a lot easier if you just used a different word. Ideally, it's advice on how to communicate better, not how to stop communication all together. 'Political Correctness' is, in a way, a guide into the mind of someone that has a very different way of understanding things than you do. It's like having a fucking road map, in some ways.

In short I believe your argument is flawed because usually, you have something that you want to do that is not politically motivated. You want to get a point across, or convince some people to join a project, or a whole slew of things. But, given that you have a particular thing that you want to do, there are multiple ways to going about doing it, and you are usually well served by minimizing the extent to which you offend the people you are trying to convince. You may always offend someone with something you say, but given that your point is important to you, you would be well served by minimizing distractions, which 'being offended' almost always is.

Anyway, that was entirely too fucking long. Don't feel compelled to respond to all (or any) of that.

It's okay...lol. Actually, this is interesting.

I guess mainly I was more writing for those who find the simplest excuse to scream triggers or whatever. Obviously, if you use the n word or scream 'faggot' at someone, that's not cool.

Political correctness has gone too far and does not really have any defining boundaries.

It's okay to tell someone that smoking is wrong and to go somewhere else, but call them overweight and not take up two seats on an airplane, and that crosses the line.
If you're a doctor, It's perfectly acceptable to try to recommend to commit a man to a mental facility trying to cut off his ring finger because he "feels" like it's not a part of his body, but if it's his dick and he "feels" like a woman, he's paraded "brave" and you're considered a bigot.

First, I see nothing wrong, inherently, with a thing being politically correct. It is, for example, overwhelmingly the Politically Correct stance to be against: rape, serial killing, drug addiction, fascism, and child molestation.

Strawman example, no sane member of Western Society has ever argued that (with the exception of fascism which is a political ideology and could be replaced with communism) rape, serial killings, drug addiction and child molestation are anything but deplorable. A better example of being politically correct would be to refer to disabled people as differently abled.

Well, if I did use a strawman argument, then this seems to imply some very interesting things about you. To the best of my knowledge, a strawman argument is when a speaker (or writer, I guess) misrepresents the view of the argument he is attacking, so that when he knocks it down, it appears as though he's won the argument.

So in order for you to say that I've straw-manned you, you seem to be implying that I've misrepresented your views. And given that I've represented your views as being against rape, serial killing, drug addiction, fascism, and child molestation, then it makes me wonder -- do you think those things are right or OK? Or perhaps you have no preference for whether children are molested. But you seem to be saying in the next sentence that I was correct in this presentation of your views. If this is not how I misrepresented your views, then how? What 'straw-man' did I knock down?

You appear to have completely misunderstood my views

Simply put: your examples of political correctness are dreadful.

Murder rape etc. etc. are viewed as unacceptable and deplorable and no normal human seriously argues against these views. You appear to have conflated political correctness with etiquette; there may be similarities but, they neither are not synonyms nor can they be used interchangeably.

In when an individual is being politically they go out of their way to avoid offense and take actions or make choices that would not have been taken by a significant number of people. IE they put considerably more effort into avoiding offense when dealing with certain subjects and areas. For example a person with a disability is referred to a disabled, someone being politically correct would refer to them as "differently abled".

Ironically, you appear to have misrepresented my views by implicitly suggesting that I am fine with rape, serial killing, drug addiction, fascism, and child molestation, if only I had a word for it....

Few seem to grasp your point theYchromosome. I sympathize. An unfortunate many enjoy viewing the world through a toilet paper roll...I find it exhausting at times. I'm glad to have checked Crunchyroll today and found this lovely topic. I cannot begin to explain how exhilarating I find such patiently written and thought provoking reflections like this.

Most distaste for political correctness is delivered as a non sequitur argument. I agree it is often irrelevant. Instead, what seems to be the fundamental problem causing general unrest is the degree of restraint enforced upon freedom of expression across many spaces. The common issue has always been the enforcement spectrum of it--what it entails and less the etiquette.

However, keep in mind that by simply calling for political correctness that it often, presently, follows with some sort of enforcement or restriction. This is why people have tied the two together so tightly out of fear of the probable response. A->B although A is separate from B and A is not always followed by B.

The complaints stem from how highly placed political correctness is among other considerations you have mentioned--ethical, moral, or even educational values. Of course the reaction to an imbalance is often equal and opposite, propelling to the other side of the horseshoe. What often ends up happening--and what we can witness at this moment--is dogmatism on both sides. The 'anti PC' crowd often conflates the issues that are rooted from the overflowing restrictions, enforcement, and demands...with the concept of political correctness entirely. It's much easier, simpler, and quicker to label it terrible altogether and entice people using pathos or pseudo-rationalism in order to rally and mobilize them in a fervor of youthful passion.

So I suppose it is the increasing pedestal under political correctness that is more precisely the issue that stands at fire today. As always though, that fire tends to get a bit hot headed, irrational, and uncontrolled--fueled by the sparks of its passion and the moderate kindling that got a bit near to it.

You're right, someone getting offended by something doesn't make something politically incorrect. The definition I gave was a little flawed, since it only covers actions and not works of art, but it can, I think, be extended to cover works of art. Plus, we could just consider 'creating something that offends people' an action. But, either way, it shouldn't be too hard. So, we can figure out, roughly, whether SAO is politically correct by asking whether people are offended by it. If more people are offended by it than those that find it inoffensive, then we might provisionally call it 'politically incorrect.' I don't think that's the case, but I haven't the data. But, we could find out with sufficient resources. The same goes with pooping cats. If, among alternatives, we can find the option that offends the least number of people, then such an option is the politically correct one. We need only find out what offends people.

Rapists and child molesters might disagree with you on the morality of their actions, but regardless, why does it matter at all to what makes a thing politically correct? You say I'm conflating morality and political correctness, but to me, it seems as though you're conflating political correctness and immorality. Why can't something be both moral and politically correct? Why do you seem to be implying that the moral choice can't also be the one that offends the least number of people?

As to the last sentence, you seem to be implying that speaking something does not constitute an action. Would you mind explaining? I was under the impression that people could act politically correct, since actions, in my experience, often offend people more than words do. But perhaps you find my definition of PC lacking. If so, then what's yours?

Saying SAO to be politically correct or incorrect is absurd, just as saying pooping cats are. Again, political correctness does not simply mean someone taking offense. Why is it called "politically correct" instead of just "correct"? Think about it.

You misunderstand what political correctness is about. It's not about having more or less people being offended.

To get you started, you might want to at least check out the Wikipedia entry. It's called "political" for a reason.

Also, you misrepresent the logic of my statements. Where did I imply moral choice can't also be offensive? You don't understand my statement. I don't mean or want to be pedantic but you need to study logic, particularly Venn Diagrams. Of course moral choices can be offensive, because not all moral choices are politically oriented, and not all politically oriented choices are moral. They are separate issues that needs to be kept separate.

You misunderstand what political correctness is about. It's not about having more or less people being offended.

You know, I think you're the 3rd or 4th person to tell me I have no idea what Political Correctness is. You're the 3rd or 4th person to whom I said something like -- Ok fine. So tell me what it is. You're the 3rd or 4th person to completely ignore me. Here's an idea: If I don't know what political correctness is, then educate me. If my definition doesn't work, then give me yours. People here are interesting. They continually repeat that I obviously have no idea what Political Correctness is, but then decline to tell me, as though it's some sort of secret teaching passed down in their family for generations, and letting the secret out would bring about the end of the world. I am highly skeptical that the definition of a word will have that effect. Why? Because they're just fucking words. They mean whatever you mean to express by them. So you tell me. When you use the word(s) 'political correctness,' to what do you refer?

Few seem to grasp your point theYchromosome. I sympathize. An unfortunate many enjoy viewing the world through a toilet paper roll...I find it exhausting at times. I'm glad to have checked Crunchyroll today and found this lovely topic. I cannot begin to explain how exhilarating I find such patiently written and thought provoking reflections like this.

Most distaste for political correctness is delivered as a non sequitur argument. I agree it is often irrelevant. Instead, what seems to be the fundamental problem causing general unrest is the degree of restraint enforced upon freedom of expression across many spaces. The common issue has always been the enforcement spectrum of it--what it entails and less the etiquette.

However, keep in mind that by simply calling for political correctness that it often, presently, follows with some sort of enforcement or restriction. This is why people have tied the two together so tightly out of fear of the probable response. A->B although A is separate from B and A is not always followed by B.

The complaints stem from how highly placed political correctness is among other considerations you have mentioned--ethical, moral, or even educational values. Of course the reaction to an imbalance is often equal and opposite, propelling to the other side of the horseshoe. What often ends up happening--and what we can witness at this moment--is dogmatism on both sides. The 'anti PC' crowd often conflates the issues that are rooted from the overflowing restrictions, enforcement, and demands...with the concept of political correctness entirely. It's much easier, simpler, and quicker to label it terrible altogether and entice people using pathos or pseudo-rationalism in order to rally and mobilize them in a fervor of youthful passion.

So I suppose it is the increasing pedestal under political correctness that is more precisely the issue that stands at fire today. As always though, that fire tends to get a bit hot headed, irrational, and uncontrolled--fueled by the sparks of its passion and the moderate kindling that got a bit near to it.

You misunderstand what political correctness is about. It's not about having more or less people being offended.

You know, I think you're the 3rd or 4th person to tell me I have no idea what Political Correctness is. You're the 3rd or 4th person to whom I said something like -- Ok fine. So tell me what it is. You're the 3rd or 4th person to completely ignore me. Here's an idea: If I don't know what political correctness is, then educate me. If my definition doesn't work, then give me yours. People here are interesting. They continually repeat that I obviously have no idea what Political Correctness is, but then decline to tell me, as though it's some sort of secret teaching passed down in their family for generations, and letting the secret out would bring about the end of the world. I am highly skeptical that the definition of a word will have that effect. Why? Because they're just fucking words. They mean whatever you mean to express by them. So you tell me. When you use the word(s) 'political correctness,' to what do you refer?

What the heck? Didn't I already give you a starting point, or did you ignore that?

Repeat, starting with Wikipedia- and yes I DID give you that starting point.

You misunderstand what political correctness is about. It's not about having more or less people being offended.

You know, I think you're the 3rd or 4th person to tell me I have no idea what Political Correctness is. You're the 3rd or 4th person to whom I said something like -- Ok fine. So tell me what it is. You're the 3rd or 4th person to completely ignore me. Here's an idea: If I don't know what political correctness is, then educate me. If my definition doesn't work, then give me yours. People here are interesting. They continually repeat that I obviously have no idea what Political Correctness is, but then decline to tell me, as though it's some sort of secret teaching passed down in their family for generations, and letting the secret out would bring about the end of the world. I am highly skeptical that the definition of a word will have that effect. Why? Because they're just fucking words. They mean whatever you mean to express by them. So you tell me. When you use the word(s) 'political correctness,' to what do you refer?

What the heck? Didn't I already give you a starting point, or did you ignore that?

Repeat, starting with Wikipedia- and yes I DID give you that starting point.

So I'm to take it that Wikipedia's definition is representative of your own? Very well. It just seemed strange, given that Wiki's definition is

language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society

And you had said that people getting offended by things was not what makes things politically correct, and Wikipedia does include offensiveness as a criterion. Or at least you seemed to be saying so, when you said:

People get offended by all sorts of things. That doesn't automatically make those things politically incorrect.

and

It's not about having more or less people being offended.

I had figured you must have had some disagreement with the definition, since 'to offend' was a criterion that you said did not constitute Political Correctness. I had thought that perhaps you didn't mean to use such a definition as your own. So I asked you directly. But now that I see that you do mean for me to take Wikipedia's definition as your own, I will do so.

So, then, when I look at the topic of child molesters, it seems to me that a policy of child molestation would both offend the American Majority (a particular group of people), and disadvantage victims of child molestation (another group of people). Since the requirements listed are that the thing in question be language, policy, or measure, and that the thing in question be intended to 1) not offend or 2) not disadvantage, it would seem to me that, by definition, an Anti-Child-Molestation policy would be the politically correct one. I believe I could say roughly the same of my other examples as well. How then, by Wikipedia's definition, is a policy of Anti-Child-Molestation not politically correct?